2015 (2) TMI 1044

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....amounting to Rs. 4 Lakhs and 2 chits were recovered. A search was conducted in respect of the appellant as well, but the said search did not result in recovery of any incriminating documents. Few other persons were also searched and some documents were seized. Statement was recorded from Haza Mohideen, who deposed that he had indulged in hawala transactions. Similarly, on 10.4.90 and 11.4.90, statement of the appellant was recorded, who stated that he had a friend by name Abdullah, who was working in Dubai for six years and he admitted that he received a phone call from the said Abdullah informing him that one person would come to the house of the appellant and hand over Rs. 4 Lakhs and that he should receive the amount and keep it. The app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onable doubt. 6. After the end of the criminal trial, on 16.2.09, the appellant moved an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, viz., FERA Board and, the Tribunal, after considering the matter in depth, reduced the penalty in respect of the present appellant from Rs. 75,000/= to Rs. 50,000/=. It is informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was directed to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/= for entertaining the appeal, which order the appellant complied with and after orders of the FERA Board modifying the penalty from Rs. 75,000/= to Rs. 50,000/=, the FERA Board has ordered that the said amount be adjusted towards penalty. However, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in allowing the appeal f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... award of penalty and not the initiation of proceedings under Section 51 of the Act, the making of a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act as the key to both proceedings, would all indicate that an adjudication should precede a prosecution under Section 56 of the Act. There is nothing in the Act to indicate that a finding in an adjudication, is binding on the court in a prosecution under Section 56 of the Act. There is no indication that the prosecution depends upon the result of the adjudication. We have already held that on the scheme of the Act, the two proceedings are independent. The finding in one is not conclusive in the other. In the context of the objects sought to be achieved by the Act, the elements relied on by the ....